The concept of the NAP itself says rights should not be infringed upon, and initiation of aggression is contrary to normativity. But a normative ideal itself is intrinsically negative, since holding oneself to such an ideal is a deep, dangerous desire. The impacts of the NAP would be that any force contradicts morality, such that the concept of "morality" emboldens strength, and fights fire with fire. Hammurabi's Code and such dangerous philosophies are entailed by this desire for normativity, since you are viewing desire as lack of something ideal, rather than a constant flow of production that maximizes benefit.

(1) Grounds for morality

For the concept of morality, we require an epistemological ground. Sans any grounds, there is no real morality. "[T]he loss of epistemological ground for . . . morality . . . does not quash the moral impulse itself . . . what form does this impulse take when it has lost its lodging in an abstract principle and vision of the good? . . . it paradoxically evinces precisely the nihilism, the antilife bearing that it moralizes against in its nemesis." [1. Wendy Brown, "Politics Out of History," pp. 28-29]. The question entails -- what *is* the epistemological ground for morality? Humans naturally require a conceptualization of a higher power to make morality "objective." That is God. As Nietzsche proclaimed, "God is dead," which means any morality sans this is merely a moralizing vengeance. Lack of obligations means envisioning rights is merely infringing on others' rights.

(2) Desire

Deleuze and Guattari write, "Desire is the set of passive synthesis that engineer partial objects, flows, and bodies, and that function as units of production . . . Desire is a machine, and the object of desire is another machine connected to it. Hence the product is something removed or deducted from the process of producing: between the act of producing and the product, something becomes detached." [2. D&G, "Anti-Oedipus," pp. 26-29]. D&G 2, "The thesis of schizoanalysis is therefore the distinction between two poles of social libidinal investment: the paranoiac, reactionary, and fascisizing pole, and the schizoid revolutionary pole." We should, therefore, embrace revolution by discarding concepts such as rights and uphold what benefits *humankind,* which, in turn, benefits the individual more than the non-benefit of humankind. Therefore, both egoism and altruism are morally fulfilled.

== Aggregate Theories ==

The aggregate theory espoused by Nietzsche and Machiavelli is one where morality is irrelevant to what creates greater net benefit to the individual. We must embrace pragmatism and rationality as the means of generating the product we desire -- happiness. As rational egoism would entail, what we desire is primary when the desire wants a real object that benefits *us,* therefore prefer that metaethics which ignores morality, and, rather, makes decisions based on maximizing benefit and minimizing loss.

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

The concept of the NAP itself says rights should not be infringed upon, and initiation of aggression is contrary to normativity. But a normative ideal itself is intrinsically negative, since holding oneself to such an ideal is a deep, dangerous desire. The impacts of the NAP would be that any force contradicts morality, such that the concept of "morality" emboldens strength, and fights fire with fire. Hammurabi's Code and such dangerous philosophies are entailed by this desire for normativity, since you are viewing desire as lack of something ideal, rather than a constant flow of production that maximizes benefit.

What standard are you using to define "dangerous"? You can't use consequentialism without first warranting it.

(1) Grounds for morality

For the concept of morality, we require an epistemological ground. Sans any grounds, there is no real morality. "[T]he loss of epistemological ground for . . . morality . . . does not quash the moral impulse itself . . . what form does this impulse take when it has lost its lodging in an abstract principle and vision of the good? . . . it paradoxically evinces precisely the nihilism, the antilife bearing that it moralizes against in its nemesis." [1. Wendy Brown, "Politics Out of History," pp. 28-29]. The question entails -- what *is* the epistemological ground for morality? Humans naturally require a conceptualization of a higher power to make morality "objective." That is God. As Nietzsche proclaimed, "God is dead," which means any morality sans this is merely a moralizing vengeance. Lack of obligations means envisioning rights is merely infringing on others' rights.

ANY normative ethical system can be finished off by appealing to ethical nihilism. In order to have any serious discussion on the soundness of the non-aggression principle, it must first be presumed that objective moral truths exist in some form.

(2) Desire

Deleuze and Guattari write, "Desire is the set of passive synthesis that engineer partial objects, flows, and bodies, and that function as units of production . . . Desire is a machine, and the object of desire is another machine connected to it. Hence the product is something removed or deducted from the process of producing: between the act of producing and the product, something becomes detached." [2. D&G, "Anti-Oedipus," pp. 26-29]. D&G 2, "The thesis of schizoanalysis is therefore the distinction between two poles of social libidinal investment: the paranoiac, reactionary, and fascisizing pole, and the schizoid revolutionary pole."

What the f*ck? Define:-schizoanalysis-libidinal-paranoiac-fascisizing-schizoid

(1) Making up words to sound like your argument means something is not a good strategy

(2) This would seem to be nothing more than a raw appeal to authority.

We should, therefore, embrace revolution by discarding concepts such as rights and uphold what benefits *humankind,* which, in turn, benefits the individual more than the non-benefit of humankind. Therefore, both egoism and altruism are morally fulfilled.

(1) The part where you actually justified a moral obligation to "embrace revolution" was utterly incoherent and probably fallacious.

(2) Rights have an objective ethical justification centered around the concept of self-ownership (will be elucidated later). We can't just reject an objective moral truth simply because we like 'revolution'.

(3) That which "benefits humankind" does not benefit all individuals; it technically only benefits at least 50% of individuals. For the minority of individuals who are not benefited, egoism is *not* fulfilled; and since egoism fundamentally functions on the subjective / individual level, this means that egoism as a whole is not truly fulfilled either.

(4) There is no reason to believe that having everyone pursue their own self-interests (i.e. abide by egoism) would not be in the best interest of humankind. That is exactly what the fundamental premise of capitalism is! Many libertarian economists would argue that fulfilling egoism would actually be *ideal* for humankind's welfare.

== Aggregate Theories ==

The aggregate theory espoused by Nietzsche and Machiavelli is one where morality is irrelevant to what creates greater net benefit to the individual. We must embrace pragmatism and rationality as the means of generating the product we desire -- happiness. As rational egoism would entail, what we desire is primary when the desire wants a real object that benefits *us,* therefore prefer that metaethics which ignores morality, and, rather, makes decisions based on maximizing benefit and minimizing loss.

Bare assertion. *Why* exactly is morality "irrelevant to what creates greater net benefit to the individual"? You never explained, beyond the raw appeals to Nietzsche and Machiavelli. Moreover, why is rationality being made synonymous with pragmatism? I can just as easily assert that rationality supports the NAP. Except that my assertion is actually warranted because I am about to demonstrate *how* the conclusion of the NAP's soundness can be arrived at through rational deliberation...

== My Case ==

All human beings have ownership over themselves. This is intuitively obvious-- since you are the sole user and occupier of your own body, you are the only one who can exert any sort of authority or control over it. Denying self-ownership results in a performative contradiction because simply the act of speaking/typing to do that requires you to have ownership over yourself. With self-ownership established, it is easy to see how this translates into rights like life and liberty -- life is the most essential component of the self, and liberty stems from the very definition of "ownership". There is also a justification of property rights which comes from self-ownership, but that is irrelevant to the general soundness of the NAP. In conclusion, every individual possesses self-ownership and its associated rights; the only moral obligation in existence is to not infringe on the self-ownership & rights of other individuals. That is, in essence, the NAP.

At 8/28/2015 8:19:09 AM, Romanii wrote:ANY normative ethical system can be finished off by appealing to ethical nihilism. In order to have any serious discussion on the soundness of the non-aggression principle, it must first be presumed that objective moral truths exist in some form.

At 8/28/2015 8:19:09 AM, Romanii wrote:ANY normative ethical system can be finished off by appealing to ethical nihilism. In order to have any serious discussion on the soundness of the non-aggression principle, it must first be presumed that objective moral truths exist in some form.

How is this not building castles in the sky?

It is... almost all debates are framed to include certain assumptions in order to prevent them from devolving into the same fundamental questions over and over again. Moral realism is certainly a topic worth discussing, but that is not the topic of this thread.

At 8/28/2015 8:19:09 AM, Romanii wrote:ANY normative ethical system can be finished off by appealing to ethical nihilism. In order to have any serious discussion on the soundness of the non-aggression principle, it must first be presumed that objective moral truths exist in some form.

How is this not building castles in the sky?

It is... almost all debates are framed to include certain assumptions in order to prevent them from devolving into the same fundamental questions over and over again. Moral realism is certainly a topic worth discussing, but that is not the topic of this thread.

In fact I think that if you leave out the discussion of moral realism / foundations, that is what will lead to the discussion becoming purposeless and circular. To convince someone of a particular moral system, is to make a claim about the foundations of morality; otherwise it all collapses into pragmatism. This seems to be an issue with most discussions of NAP: they take as axiomatic just those things which should be under question, which is why I actually liked the fact that the OP confronts the view with a kind of post-modernist moral nihilism.

You (as an NAP advocate) are claiming that I should avoid acts of force categorically, even where it seems to be in my interest or 'the common' interest, and even if it seems almost unquestionable that it will lead to a better outcome. The burden would seem to be on yourself to produce such a responsibility from essentially nowhere. This burden is not an aggressive act on the part of the person who asks it of you; that person is basically just cashing out what is implied within the claim itself. It is an extraordinary claim.

Actually, if you want to just say that NAP is a pragmatic consideration, then I'm totally good with that. But I can't see how you could debate a deontological ethical system while completely bracketing moral foundations. Either it's pragmatic and morality basically doesn't matter, or it's rule-based and you have a moral system to build from ground-up. You can't convince anyone of a rule-based ethic based solely on its use and without reference to its basis; the basis is its only selling-point. Otherwise, something more useful will come along and the NAP becomes irrelevant.

The concept of the NAP itself says rights should not be infringed upon, and initiation of aggression is contrary to normativity. But a normative ideal itself is intrinsically negative, since holding oneself to such an ideal is a deep, dangerous desire. The impacts of the NAP would be that any force contradicts morality, such that the concept of "morality" emboldens strength, and fights fire with fire. Hammurabi's Code and such dangerous philosophies are entailed by this desire for normativity, since you are viewing desire as lack of something ideal, rather than a constant flow of production that maximizes benefit.

Should one desire to not hold ideals? Is it moral to not adhere to the NAP?

(1) Grounds for morality

For the concept of morality, we require an epistemological ground. Sans any grounds, there is no real morality. "[T]he loss of epistemological ground for . . . morality . . . does not quash the moral impulse itself . . . what form does this impulse take when it has lost its lodging in an abstract principle and vision of the good? . . . it paradoxically evinces precisely the nihilism, the antilife bearing that it moralizes against in its nemesis." [1. Wendy Brown, "Politics Out of History," pp. 28-29].

Given.

The question entails -- what *is* the epistemological ground for morality? Humans naturally require a conceptualization of a higher power to make morality "objective." That is God.

I don't understand why you're making the leap from "there must be an epistemological foundation for morality" and "God must be the epistemological foundation for morality." Objectivity can exist without God, unless you're claiming that A is not A without God, in which case you've undermined your entire argument (since it assumes the validity of logic).

As Nietzsche proclaimed, "God is dead," which means any morality sans this is merely a moralizing vengeance. Lack of obligations means envisioning rights is merely infringing on others' rights.

If nihilism holds true, then why does it matter that I'm wrong? Why should I aim towards truth if there are no moral truths? The very fact that you're debating this means that you have *some* conception of objective morality and obligation.

If rights do not exist, how is their advocacy "infringing on others' rights"?

(2) Desire

Deleuze

Oh dear.

and Guattari write, "Desire is the set of passive synthesis that engineer partial objects, flows, and bodies, and that function as units of production . . . Desire is a machine, and the object of desire is another machine connected to it. Hence the product is something removed or deducted from the process of producing: between the act of producing and the product, something becomes detached." [2. D&G, "Anti-Oedipus," pp. 26-29]. D&G 2, "The thesis of schizoanalysis is therefore the distinction between two poles of social libidinal investment: the paranoiac, reactionary, and fascisizing pole, and the schizoid revolutionary pole." We should, therefore, embrace revolution by discarding concepts such as rights and uphold what benefits *humankind,* which, in turn, benefits the individual more than the non-benefit of humankind. Therefore, both egoism and altruism are morally fulfilled.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Please clarify.

== Aggregate Theories ==

The aggregate theory espoused by Nietzsche and Machiavelli is one where morality is irrelevant to what creates greater net benefit to the individual.

This is a moral stance, and, therefore, self-defeating.

We must embrace pragmatism and rationality as the means of generating the product we desire -- happiness. As rational egoism would entail, what we desire is primary when the desire wants a real object that benefits *us,* therefore prefer that metaethics which ignores morality, and, rather, makes decisions based on maximizing benefit and minimizing loss.

You're, in effect, saying that "it is moral to ignore morality", which is incoherent. Most of your points are totally unsubstantiated and are mere assertions (and, as such, I have no idea how to respond - there's no content to actually respond to).

"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"